- Supreme Court granted bail to three accused in Pune Porsche blood sample tampering case
- The accused were jailed for 18 months for allegedly swapping blood samples after a fatal crash
- The crash killed two on a motorbike, hit by a 17-year-old allegedly driving under influence
The Supreme Court on Monday granted bail to three men accused of helping tamper with blood samples after the Pune Porsche crash in 2024, in which two young software engineers were killed. The three, Ashish Mittal, Aditya Sood and Amar Gaikwad, had been in jail for 18 months.
The case relates to the accident on May 19, 2024, when a 17-year-old, allegedly driving a Porsche car under the influence of alcohol, hit a man and a woman on a motorbike in Pune's Kalyani Nagar area. Both victims, Aneesh Awadhiya and Ashwini Koshta, died on the spot.
The juvenile's parents, government hospital doctors, and others were later arrested for allegedly attempting to manipulate his blood samples to show that he was not drunk at the time of the crash.
Who Are The Accused?
Ashish Mittal is the friend of the father of the child who was in the back of the car and Aditya Sood is the father of the child who was in the back. Gaikwad is the alleged middleman who helped in swapping samples
According to the prosecution, blood samples at Sassoon Hospital were swapped and reports were forged. It was alleged that Mittal's blood was used in place of the accused juvenile's. Sood faced similar allegations in relation to his son. Gaikwad was accused of receiving Rs 3 lakh to hand over the samples to a doctor. Both Mittal (37) and Sood (52) were arrested on August 19 last year.
Supreme Court's Observations
While granting bail, Justice BV Nagarathna made strong observations on parenting and accountability.
She said parents who provide money and sports cars to minors, instead of spending time with them, fail in their responsibility. She noted that celebrations cannot involve overspeeding and causing harm to the poor or those walking on footpaths.
"Law has to catch up with these kinds of parents. They don't have time to talk to children so they compensate with money and sports cars in name of celebration," Justice Nagarathna observed.
She added, "Celebration cannot be driving at full speed and killing people on the footpath or the poor. This is not the first time such a thing has happened. The law has to catch up. The main one responsible is the parents who give money to have gala time. Parents have no time to spend with their children and that is why what is the best thing to give, the ATM card! Of course there will be public outrage."
The court noted that even for the driver who caused the accident, the maximum punishment is three years, and the case is being heard before the Juvenile Justice Board.
It added, "Since there is no allegation against the juvenile at the backseat of the car, it is unlikely that there can be allegations against them. Since allegations were made, they are in jail for 18 months. It was submitted that even as against the driver who caused the accident the punishment is of three years. The juvenile is also being tried before the Juvenile Justice Board. Thus their continued incarceration will greatly prejudice and thus it was contended that bail be granted to the three appellants. Petitions allowed. Let them be produced before the concerned trial court. Let them be released on bail subject to the conditions imposed by the trial court."
Arguments In Court
Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave, appearing for Mittal, argued that his client was accused only of giving a blood sample for the child in the backseat, who has not been prosecuted. He pointed out that Mittal had already spent more than a year in custody.
Senior Advocate Siddharth Agarwal, representing Sood, said their blood samples were taken in the presence of a police officer and that, at worst, the allegations amounted to offences under Section 201.
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankarnarayanan, representing the father of the woman killed in the crash, said it was a "classic case of undermining the entire criminal justice system." He argued that the conspiracy went beyond the initial accident and involved coordinated efforts to manipulate the investigation, including swapping of blood samples to conceal alcohol consumption.
Justice Nagarathna responded by asking whether there could be punishment before conviction, while Sankarnarayanan flagged possible risks to the investigation.
Also, the court has imposed strict conditions for bail, warning that if the accused are found attempting to contact witnesses or influence them in any manner, bail will stand cancelled.
